Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/11/1834

Mr.Prakash T.G - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S New County - Opp.Party(s)

B.Roopesha

27 Feb 2012

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM (Principal)
8TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BWSSB BUILDING, BANGALORE-5600 09.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/1834
 
1. Mr.Prakash T.G
S/o.Mr.G.T.Tubakad,R/at No.45,5th main,R.H.C.S.Limited,Srigandhada Kavalu,Nagarbhavi,2nd stage,B'lore
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

COMPLAINT FILED:01.10.2011

                  DISPOSED ON:27.02.2012

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

 

27th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012

 

  PRESENT :-  SRI. B.S. REDDY                   PRESIDENT

           SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA                       MEMBER

 

       COMPLAINT NO.1834/2011

                                 

Complainant

   Prakash T.G S/o

   G.T.Tubakad,

   Aged about 35 years,

   R/at No.45, 5th Main,    

   R.H.C.S.Limited,

   Srigandhada Kavalu,  

   Nagarabhavi, 2nd Stage,

   Bangalore.

 

  Adv:Sri.B.Roopesh

 

V/s.

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1.M/s New County,

   Having its registered Office

   at No.895/1, “Skanda”

  14th Cross,

   Mahalakshmi Layout,

   Bangalore-86.

2.M/s New County,

   Having its registered Office

   at No.895/1, “Skanda”

   14th Cross,

   Mahalakshmi Layout,

   Bangalore-86,

   Represented by its Partner

   Mr.V.Bhaskar Reddy.

 

   Placed Ex-parte.

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

Sri.B.S.REDDY,PRESIDENT

 

The complainant filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 seeking direction against Ops to allot an alternative site and to execute the sale deed in the alternative to refund an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on the allegation of deficiency in service.

2. In spite of service of notice, Ops failed to appear without any justifiable cause, hence placed ex-parte.

3.In order to substantiate complaint averments, the complainant filed affidavit evidence.

4. Heard from complainant’s side.

5.We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of the complainant. On the basis of these materials, it becomes clear that OP1 is represented by its Managing Partner OP2. The complainant being lured away by advertisement of Ops with regard to the layout forming sites at Ittamadu Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagaram Taluk, Bangalore Rural District now Ramanagar District applied for the site measuring 30 X 40 in the said project and paid an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- by way of 2 cheques dt.03.07.2007 and 05.07.2007 both drawn on ABN Amro Bank. Ops issued the receipt dt.14.06.2007 confirming the receipt of the cheques. As per the terms and conditions, Ops agreed to register the sale deed after receiving the entire consideration. In spite of complainant approaching Ops many times Ops failed to respond and came forward to execute the sale deed. The complainant had written letter on 23.03.2009 requesting Ops to refund the amount. Ops on 12.05.2009 sent reply undertaking to refund the amount on 10.08.2009, but OPs failed to comply with the said undertaking. Document Nos.2 & 3 are the letter sent to the Ops and the reply for the same from Ops. The legal notice was sent to the Ops, the same was returned un-served. Thus the complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

6.There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and the documents produced. The very fact of Ops remaining ex-parte leads to draw inference that Ops are admitting the complaint averments. In the reply letter dt.12.05.2009 document No.3 Ops have categorically admitted the receipt of the amount and had undertaken to refund the same on 10.08.2009. The payments of Rs.2,40,000/- was made through cheques and the receipt of the cheques are acknowledged as per the document No.1 receipt issued by Ops. There is no material to show that Ops have formed any other layout so as to direct them to execute the sale deed. Without there being any material to show that OPs have acquired any land and formed any approved layout, the relief directing to execute the sale deed cannot be granted. The very facts of Ops failure to form any layout and allot the site or refunding the amount received amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled for refund of the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. by way of compensation from 05.07.2007 till the date of realization along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

       

        The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.

Ops are directed to refund an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. by way of compensation from 05.07.2007 till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.  

This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.

 Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 27th day of FEBRUARY 2012.)

 

                                                                                                      

 

MEMBER                                               PRESIDENT

Cs.

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.